It was shocking. And it was expected that this tragedy would seep through into Sunday's football coverage.

But many people were not expecting Bob Costas to make a plea for gun control.

During halftime of NBC's "Sunday Night Football," Costas blamed the nation's gun culture for what happened between Belcher and his girlfriend, remarks that set off a heated debate about whether the sportscaster should have launched into what some called a "rant" on gun control.

Here's a transcript of Costas' comments:

"Well, you know that it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again: Something like this really puts it all in perspective.

Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please, those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective.

You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from a Kansas City based-writer, Jason Whitlock, with whom I do not always agree but who today said it so well today that we may as well as quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.

‘Our current gun culture,' Whitlock wrote, '... ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenaged boys bloody and dead. ...

'Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.'

In the coming days, Jovan Belcher's actions and their possible connections to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today." (You can read Whitlock's column here.)

Costas' remarks seemed to send the Internet into an immediate feeding frenzy. Was it appropriate for him to talk about a political issue during a sports show? What is the right forum for this kind of discussion? Was he only saying what everyone else was already thinking? The comments kept flying:

I will gladly debate Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas on gun control, BUT we tuned in for an NFL game! Ridiculous programming decision!

The main point here may be you can't please everybody. There will always be critics when it comes to an issue that sparks such intense debate. But does that mean you don't even touch it? Or did Costas' comments do exactly what he may have intended - reigniting the debate over gun control?

I still like Bob Costas, but this was an entirely inappropriate time to do political hobby horsing. Saturday's events would have been no less tragic had Jovan Belcher decided to stab his girlfriend to death and then take his own life by hanging himself.

My deepest condolences to Belcher's family and girlfriend's family. This is a horrible tragedy. The reason for which, we might not ever know. One thing is for sure, however, it was not because of America's "gun culture." Costas should be ashamed for promoting such obvious propaganda in the wake of a terrible tragedy during a sporting event. Are we supposed to believe that if Belcher didn't own a gun, that cooler heads would have prevailed and the couple would have just worked it out with words? It takes time and a deliberate decision to load a gun, cock it, point and shoot. I read he shot her 9 times. This is nothing like saying something you regret in an argument as Whitlock and Costas want to make you believe.

Guns don't kill people; they facilitate bad decisions that kill people. Guns are a point-and-click solution to an instant of personal crisis. Sure, Belcher could kill with his bare hands - but killing with a gun takes only a split-second of emotion or intoxication, not the actual resolve to kill. This is what Costas is trying to say: Fewer guns, fewer tragedies.

How many murder-suicides have you heard about that did NOT involve a gun? Thought so.

So it's perfectly acceptable for someone that is supposed to be working to announce a sporting event, but now we have to be forced to accept his personal feeling about the second amendment right that we all have. I'm sure that CBS supports Bob Costas for that is the only reason that Bob is still employed there. Why should this have been talked about longer than 10 seconds, it has nothing to do with what is occurring between the end zone and the side lines. I for one vote to see Bob Costas fired, unless like I said he was voicing the true feelings of CBS.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Also has one of the highest murder rates by guns in the nation. If all the guns in the US were confiscated the same gangs that import drugs would start importing guns for gangs and those who commit crimes. Criminals would no longer have to worry about being confronted by a gun owner when they invade a house to rape, pillage and plunder.

Shawn, Vermont has "ridiculously loose" gun laws and yet gun crime is basically non-existent" here. Illinois (i.e. Chicago) on the other hand, has the most restrictive laws on guns in the nation AND one of the worst gun crime rates (remember all those killings last summer?) So you're telling me MORE gun laws will help?

Ummm... You mean the ridiculous gun control laws in cities/towns/states where violent crime is worse? You should probably do some research before you start posting your opinions. I live in Chicago were violent crime is worse than it has been in years... Our neighbor Indiana? Not so much...

Actually that thinking is highly flawed in the face of historical facts. Did you know in the 1870's to 1890's period a higher percentage of people in what was known as the Wild West owned guns then the East Coast? Did you also know the Wild West had a smaller crime rate, including murder then the East Coast? Don't believe me research it. A smart person would examine mutliple published sources, but I am not going to sit here and list them when all you have to do is a simple internet search.

A gun is nothing more than a tool, it can be used for good or evil. When someone wants to kill someone a lack of a gun will not stop them. He could have used a knife, axe, baseball bat, fire poker, sewing needles, hammer..... The list can go on and on. What ever drove him to kill had no bearing on whether or not he had a gun. Selecting the gun as the tool came after the decision was made to kill.

Costas what an ass! Your opinions should be limited to football and you really kind of suck at that! It is unfortunate that this tragedy happened but there will be domestic violence as long as it is accepted by the abuseds' neighbors and without guns there will continue to be violence. Should we continue to take away legal weapons? How far do we go? Rid the earth of rocks? Limit your act to sports!

A blanket statement about outlawing guns because of the % that are used in killing is about as absurd as saying that we should outlaw blacks because % wise they commit more crimes and do more of the killings.

Maybe roids had something to do with this. Maybe we should outlaw sports beacuse males in sports tend to be more aggressive.

Costas needs to be fired. Making a political pitch during halftime for football is wrong.

And did it occur to anyone that if the guy wanted to kill the girl, but neither had a gun, he still would have been able to pull it off? He's bigger and stronger than her, obviously, he's a football player. The best case scenario would be for her to have had a gun and shot him in self defense.

About This Blog

This blog – This Just In – will no longer be updated. Looking for the freshest news from CNN? Go to our ever-popular CNN.com homepage on your desktop or your mobile device, and join the party at @cnnbrk, the world's most-followed account for news.